PUSHPA GOEL Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 9156/2014 in R.P. No. 4570/2014

(2.) Vide letter dated 28.10.1996, the Authority required the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,76,880.80 on the ground that the price of the pot in Lajpat Nagar was Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. Vide letter dated 01.01.1997, the complainant requested the Authority to allot plot to her at the same rate at which the original allotment was made and also pay interest on the amount which she had deposited with the said Authority. However, the Authority did not reduce the price of the plot at Lajpat Nagar and vide letter dated 12.08.1997 informed the complainant that if she did not deposit the balance amount, interest at the rate of 21% per annum shall be charged from her. Vide her letter dated 09.12.1997, the complainant informed the Authority that she was depositing the amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- as demanded by the said Authority, but she was reserving all her legal rights. The words "under protest" also found written in English on the photocopy of the said letter filed by the complainant but the learned counsel for the Authority Submits that the aforesaid words do not appear on the original letter received by them. However, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Authority has neither filed the original document nor a photocopy of the said document. However, even if we proceed on assumption that the words "under protest" did not appear in the letter received by the Authority that would make no difference because it is not in dispute that vide the said letter, the complainant had reserved all her legal rights, meaning thereby that the allotment was accepted by her subject to her right to avail such legal remedy as may be available to her in law. The payment of money and the acceptance of allotment in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be said to be by free consent of the complainant and therefore such payment do not come in the way of the complainant approaching a Consumer Forum for the ventilation of her grievance.

(3.) Initially the complainant approached the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practice Commission by way of a complaint filed in the year 1998 being RTPE 240/1998. However, vide order dated 07.03.2003, the said Commission allowed the complainant to withdraw the complaint with liberty to take recourse to any other remedy in an appropriate forum as permissible in law. The complainant thereafter approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following reliefs:-